Let's look at climate science: there was a study that 99% of researchers on the topic are convinced it's real, 1% have some doubts. Should we give the 1% a voi

Let's look at climate science: there was a study that 99% of researchers on the topic are convinced it's real, 1% have some doubts. Should we give the 1% a voice? Yes Should we consider the view of the 1% as equal to the 99%? No. Here's what happens when someone vocally has a dissenting view: they get press coverage, both neutral and from agenda-driven perspectives. There is exactly one country (the US, maybe two if you count Australia) where a majority of those in decision making positions believe or act as if they believe that climate change is not real. They justify this by quoting the 1% and ignoring the 99%. As such then the 1% are causing significant harm to the planet (assuming that the majority view is correct). The same in a more vivid way is true for covid: those dissenting voices (eg the French doctor Trump ended up quoting) get a lot of coverage no matter how sound the science proposed by those dissenters is (or in this case unsound - a study on the medicine he recommended had to be ended due to heavy health impacts of the medicine). These dissenters and rapidly published papers have led to deaths. No doubt, no questions, people have died due to those perspectives being pushed into the mainstream discussions. So should they be heard by peers and their views be discussed? Yes. Should they get press coverage, blog their viewpoints out there, etc, even if it leads to thousands of deaths (or destruction of the planet)? I don't think so. This is a role for media to filter (rather than blare everything into the ether), but also a self-constraint that any serious scientist should impose upon themselves. The public is not able to decide which old guy with a professor/Dr in front of his name is the one to trust.